1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to animal capturing and restraining devices and more particularly to such devices that are designed to effect such capture and such restraint in as humanely a manner as possible. In the practice of the invention as intended, it is highly improbable that a captured animal should be injured either by the action of the device or by the efforts of the animal itself in attempting to free itself.
2. Description of the Related Art
Animal capturing and restraining devices are known in which some attempt has been made to effectuate such capture and restraint in as humanely a manner as possible. While some presently available catch-and-hold devices can bring about an injury free capture, some disadvantages of these prior art devices manifest themselves in the after-capture phase particularly in the cases in which a captured animal attempts to free itself. Many different catch-and-hold devices have been employed in the attempts to solve the problems presented. Most have either presented new problems or only partially solved these problems or both.
In particular, the well-being of the human operator in removing the captured animal from the restraining device has been largely ignored in the design of these prior instrumentalities. For example, an otherwise docile animal may become vicious and fractious because of pain imposed upon it by a mechanism that clamps its leg in a toothed vise or the like. Upon approach by, say, an animal control officer, an animal so maltreated may bite the officer out of the viciousness and frustration born out of the pain attendant to its capture and restraint. As another example, animals captured and restrained by a leg clamp have been known to gnaw off a paw above the clamp in order to gain freedom. A device embodying methods such as these can hardly be called humane nor can it be depicted as efficient, especially in the case in which the animal perfects its escape.
Most of these devices have thus met special needs as presented by specific problems and have, therefore, served narrow purposes. These prior art devices, among other disadvantages, have caused unacceptable pain and suffering to captured animals, either during the procedure of its capture or during the restraint thereafter, have been unreliable and unpredictable in operation under continued use and have been expensive and complicated to manufacture and use. Some of these prior art devices have been described in patents that were brought to the attention of the applicant through a novelty search conducted in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. These patents have been listed in the accompanying INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT and PTO-1449.
The U.S. Pat. No. 1,323,400, issued Dec. 2, 1919, to Antoni Lokaj entitled ANIMAL TRAP describes a running noose deployed within a housing and interposed between an animal to be captured and a lure to attract the animal. The trap is designed to snare the animal by means of the running loop and also to close an entry door after the animal has made entrance into the trap. It is significant that the animal to be trapped must first enter the trap completely and then stick its head into the noose in an attempt to reach the lure provided thereafter. It is conceivable that many wary animals would not even enter the almost fully enclosed trap. The running noose, deployed as shown in full view may constitute another indication of danger to an animal to be trapped. FIG. 2 of that patent shows a successfully trapped animal as being suspended by its neck and thus probably throttled. That eventuality can hardly be considered as humane.
The U.S. Pat. No. 1,342,425, issued June 8, 1920, to Felix H. Crago, entitled TRAP, describes a device that is actuated by means of a coiled spring which is triggered by an animal's stepping on a treadle. The described device depends on concealment for its action in capturing an animal since no lure has been provided to attract the animal to the trap. It is apparent that an animal so captured will be captured by a leg or paw. It is known that animals so caught have gnawed the extremity so restrained and amputated it so as to gain freedom. Such an eventuality is sought to be prevented by the advantages of applicant's invention both to prevent the inhumane torture suffered by the animal and to prevent the resultant escape.
The U.S. Pat. No. 1,900,219, issued Mar. 7, 1933 to Vernon Bailey for ANIMAL TRAP purports to provide a trap which will catch and hold an animal securely without mutilation and without inflicting pain and from which the captured animal will not, leaving a paw in the trap, effect escape. Apparently, the noose that is the holding mechanism of the trap will not mutilate the animal's leg, however, it is not immediately obvious how the animal is to be prevented from mutilating its own leg in an attempt to escape. This trap, commendably, does not cause harm to the animal by its operation and thus begins to approach a humane capture and hold action.
The U.S. Pat. No. 4,581,843, issued Apr. 15, 1986 to Alphonse D. Fremont et al for FOOT SNARE LIVE TRAP describes an apparatus that suffers from the same difficulty found in all foot snares, namely, the very real danger that an animal so captured will injure itself in an attempt to gain its freedom. Thus the animal so captured, in addition to mutilating itself, also effects its escape thereby rendering the trap ineffective and inhumane.
It would thus be a great advantage to the art to provide a device capable of capture and restraint of an animal in a safe and humane manner.
Another great advantage would be found in a capturing and restraining device designed so that self inflicted injury to a captured and restrained animal would be most unlikely.
It would be a further desirable advantage to provide such a device in a design that is economical and uncomplicated to manufacture.
A high degree of portability coupled with ease of operation are two added leading advantages sought by the invention.